from the that's-one-way... dept

In our recent post about musician Joe Pug and other artists looking to get away from ridiculous service fees on tickets, commenter berick pointed out that Bob Dylan has come up with an interesting strategy to not just get around service fees, but scalpers as well: no pre-bought tickets to the show, just pay cash at the door:

When Bob Dylan says his just-announced, surprise show at the Warfield in San Francisco next Wednesday, August 25 costs $60, he means it costs $60 -- no service charges. No scalpers. No secondary market. In fact, perhaps as an effort to combat all complaints about the ticketing industry at large, there simply won't be any advance tickets to the show. Fans will pay $60 -- cash only -- on their way inside the venue, and that's that.

Of course, the downside to this is that if too many people show up (a decent possibility) you might not get in at all... Still, it's interesting to see how musicians are trying to get around activities that are seen as anti-consumer when it comes to pricing live shows.

from the smart dept

Recently, we'd been discussing how the concert business for (non-arena) musicians was still doing well for some, but that everyone was getting more and more frustrated about fees and services charges added to ticket prices. We also wrote about how the band The Pixies went direct to fans with concert ticket sales, avoiding some of the annoying middlemen. It looks like more artists are starting to wake up and take notice.

Singer Joe Pug, who you may recall took part in our CwF+RtB experiment last year, and has been experimenting with more fan friendly business models for a while, is trying to do the same with a new $10 Tour. The idea is that all of the shows (with a couple of specific exceptions) on his next tour will cost only $10 -- and he's testing out selling at least some of the tickets directly with no fees at all, and if that goes well, will try to do so for other shows.

There is some precedent here. Corey Smith, who we've written about many times in the past, has used $5 tickets to many of his shows to help him build up his fanbase. In that case, the story went that this helped him connect with many more fans because at $5, it was easy for an existing fan to convince friends to go (or even pay for them to go), leading to many more people getting to see Corey live.

Still, what's most interesting to me is that more and more artists, like Joe, are recognizing how much people hate some aspects of the concert-going experience (mainly dealing with the middlemen who lump on all those fees) and realize that there's a really good way to better connect with fans: which is to cut out that middleman:

A few months back I bought tickets for a concert- which shall remain nameless- only to get manhandled by service charges and by their Newspeak cousins, "convenience fees". The actual price was nearly double the face of the ticket. Half of my money was going to the band I loved, the other half to horse-thieves. Reining in ticket fees has been notoriously difficult, even for artists of great influence. But in a small step, we negotiated to do SOME of the tickets directly through our website. We're going to try this for the Chicago show on 10/16. The first 50 tickets will be available exclusively at my website with zero fees. The amount charged to your credit card will be exactly 10 bucks per ticket. If all goes well we hope to roll out the no-fee ticketing for entire tours.

from the entrepreneurial-restaurateurs dept

It is notoriously difficult to be successful in the restaurant business (though the popular adage that "9 out of 10 restaurants fail within the first year" may actually be false). That said, a restaurant is a business like any other, so experimentation with new business models is important, especially in tough economic times like we have been facing in recent years. Traditionally, restaurant reservations can be canceled at the whim of the diner without penalty, but for an industry, whose margins are continually squeezed, canceled reservations could make the difference between a profitable night and an unprofitable one. Restaurants sell a limited amount of daily perishable goods and services, which draws many parallels to both the theater and airline businesses. So, perhaps restaurateurs took note of these similarities for themselves when they started selling "tickets" for their nightly dinners instead of taking reservations. In addition to tickets to individual dinners, the restaurants also offer subscriptions to a whole season of dinners -- another tactic lifted right out of the playbook of theaters. These restaurateurs correctly recognize that dining out is not just about the food; it is a social experience just like a concert, the movies, or a sporting event.

The benefit for the restaurant is that even if the diner doesn't show up for the meal, the restaurant isn't stuck holding the bag -- the responsibility to offload an unwanted dinner ticket then shifts to the diner rather than the business. Furthermore with a guarantee of revenue for the evening, shopping for expensive perishables in preparation for an evening's dinner service is much easier. That said, pre-paying for a night's meal is a complete departure from the regular dining out experience, so at first, I can really only see this tactic working for a set of exclusive restaurants. After all, online reservation marketplace TableXchange folded last year, citing empty tables at even the most popular dining hotspots.

from the hard-to-see-why dept

Back in October, we wrote about how the Philadelphia Eagles were trying to stop radio stations from doing promotional giveaways of tickets they had legally purchased. The team basically claims that the terms (which no one reads nor technically "agrees" to) on the back of the ticket forbid such uses of the tickets. Instead, clearly, the Eagles wanted to sell the rights to do promotional giveaways. Now there's a similar lawsuit involving Major League Soccer and FIFA. JJ points us to a lawsuit in which the organization that handles marketing for both soccer organizations is quite upset at Black & Decker for doing ticket giveaway promotions. The reason why they're so upset? B&D competitor Makita is "the official power tool" of both soccer leagues in the US. In this case, they're arguing trademark infringement and breach of contract, though both seem questionable. If it's an accurate promotion, such that B&D is literally giving away legally purchased tickets and merchandise, then as long as it doesn't suggest endorsement from the soccer leagues, there shouldn't be much confusion. As for the breach of contract, if B&D never agreed to the contract, it's hard to see how they can be held to it.

from the right-of-first-sale dept

We've noted the trend of trying to cut down on scalping by using e-tickets to stop the transfer of tickets, but it appears that the Philadelphia Eagles football team also is trying to stop radio stations from doing promotional giveaways. The team has sued the owner of the radio station, saying that the terms on the back of the ticket forbid the use of the tickets for commercial purposes -- such as contests -- and also that the station is violating the Eagles' trademarks in naming them around the ticket giveaway promotion. This raises a bunch of questions about the right of first sale on a ticket. While the stadium may have the right to forbid entry to anyone, it seems like that would be a dumb move on the team's part. My guess is that the team's main concern is that it only wants partner (i.e., those who paid a ton for broadcast rights) radio stations to give away tickets -- but that doesn't mean there's a legal right there. If the tickets were legitimately bought, why shouldn't the station be able to sell them or give them away? And, considering that the radio station was accurately describing the team when using the name, that shouldn't be a trademark violation.

from the some-good,-some-bad dept

Earlier this year, we had covered the news that Ticketmaster was pushing paperless tickets as a way to cut down on scalping, and now that story seems to be getting much wider coverage. The idea is that if you buy a ticket, you have to be the one to show up, with an ID and the credit card you used, in order to attend. Ticketmaster will allow you to transfer... but it can limit the price of a transfer and charge you a fee for the transfer. That makes it seem like this is a lot more about collecting more fees from the secondary market, than really cutting down on scalping. Not to mention that it seems likely to cause problems. How do you handle buying tickets for someone else as a gift? Under this system, you'd need to buy... and then "transfer" at a fee. And what if you really can't go, but the ticket has already been transferred once (a limit they set on the system). Finally, does it really make sense to block out basic market mechanisms? I recognize that there's an issue of scalpers buying up huge blocks of tickets, but there are better mechanisms to deal with that, that don't involve limiting what legitimate purchasers can do with their tickets.

from the hot-tickets dept

Online ticket reseller StubHub says that sales revenues and volume were up significantly in the first quarter, as secondary ticket prices fell and lured in more buyers. The head of the company says he wishes he could have some control over the prices and keep them down so the volume (which drives StubHub's revenues) stays high, but the company really has no way to control that, since each individual seller that uses its platform will try to push the price as high as they can. In any case, Stubhub's booming business helps explain why Ticketmaster is trying to grow its own resale business, grabbing a cut from the original sale, and then the resale too. On a related note, the StubHub CEO says he's not concerned about Ticketmaster's increasing use of paperless tickets as a means to thwart scalpers: "There are ways that brokers can provide these tickets. They're not elegant. They don't provide a great experience to the fan... Where there's a will there’s a way, and there are both interested sellers and interested buyers." Inevitably, resellers will find a way around the system -- but somehow, as long as Ticketmaster finds a new revenue stream coming from it, it's hard to imagine the company will mind too much.

from the two-sets-of-rules dept

When it's not been busy trying to get into the scalping business itself, Ticketmaster has been trying to push scalpers aside. It claims it does this for altruistic reasons, but those claims generally fall on deaf ears, with many people believing it's simply trying to capture the scalpers' revenues. It's escalating the battle now by expanding its use of paperless tickets for concerts, and will use them for the upcoming Miley Cyrus tour, after an earlier series of shows sparked a flurry of complaints about scalpers. Ticketmaster has been testing the program for a little while, and trying to sell it as a convenient solution: instead of getting a paper ticket for a show, buyers don't receive one before the show, and instead must present the credit card they used to purchase their seats to get in. On its surface, this seems like a fairly effective way of cutting out scalpers by making their transactions with their customers much more difficult. But it's still not clear why Ticketmaster sees such a need to interfere with the market -- beyond its own self-interest, of course. It's hard to imagine that Ticketmaster really cares that scalping goes on, except for the fact that it's not making any money from it.

One inevitable (and legitimate) complaint about this system is that it not only takes out scalpers, but other secondary transactions, too. Want to buy tickets as a gift, or for your kid? You'll have to take the recipient to the show and go up to the gate with them. Buy tickets for yourself, but then can't go to the show and want to give them to a friend? You're out of luck, unless you and your credit card can get there (and, of course, there are no refunds). It seems likely that Ticketmaster will have to do something to rectify this, particularly given the political scrutiny they've attracted lately, and the solution seems obvious: Ticketmaster sets up a secondary market that lets people resell their tickets and reassigns them to a new credit-card holder (taking a cut for all the hard work, of course). The company has been growing its reseller business, in particular making efforts to become the "official fan resale" partner of various sports leagues and teams, and it's hard to see it not using paperless tickets as a way to expand this business. Ticketmaster hates scalping -- unless it's the one doing the reselling. But if it wants to benefit from the free market, the market should really be free, and not one established and controlled by Ticketmaster.

from the one-day-sale dept

The San Francisco Giants are experimenting with software that dynamically prices baseball tickets, adjusting prices based on demand, weather, and even other factors like who's scheduled to pitch on a particular day. Many teams already charge different prices for seats based on the opponent or other factors, but the Giants are trying to manage ticket revenue much like airlines and hotels price their products: charging a premium for in-demand seats, but lowering prices when necessary in an attempt to fill available space. For instance, in a recent series against the Mets, some bleacher seats that regularly go for $17 each varied in price from $15 to $33, depending on the weather and pitching matchups. So far, the Giants are testing the system on just 2,000 outfield seats in their 41,000-seat stadium, wary of upsetting season-ticket holders by offering similar seats to other buyers at lower prices. They say so far, they've increased sales in those seats by 17 percent over last year, but it's too early to tell if that's solely because of the pricing system. On one hand, it's easy to see some people getting upset by the system, but on the other, a case can be made that the seats offer different levels of value on different days, and should be priced accordingly. It's essentially the same system, just a little more scientific, as that used by scalpers, and they find no shortage of willing buyers. If the Giants have a lot of success with their efforts, look for similar systems to quickly catch on with other sports teams.

from the is-this-needed? dept

There's been plenty of complaining about how ticket scalpers for various concerts and sporting events have been scooping up all of the tickets for events and making it more expensive for fans to get those tickets. Of course, in many cases, companies like TicketMaster and the musicians themselves are in on the deal, pretending to offer "scalped" tickets that they're really selling themselves. With so much talk about this issue, you knew it was only a matter of time until some grandstanding politician got involved. In this case, it's New York's Chuck Schumer, who has introduced new legislation to try to limit ticket reselling (thanks to Eric Goldman for sending this over). It will require ticket resellers to "register" with the FTC, and then such official resellers will only be allowed to get tickets two days after the tickets go on sale.

It's difficult to see what good this does, other than create a bigger bureaucratic mess. If you don't think that the ticket resellers will figure out workarounds, you haven't been paying much attention over the past few years. Besides, the very fact that Ticketmaster thinks this is a good law is a pretty damning sign that it's not doing much to solve the problem, but is really designed to help Ticketmaster make more money.

It's still difficult to see why these issues can't be solved effectively without legislation. Bands can offer early tickets through fan clubs or mailing lists, or use other tools to make sure fans get tickets at lower prices. Besides, if the demand really is that high for certain tickets, what's wrong with letting the market determine that?